MQA now on Tidal
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Re: MQA on Tidal
But Roon users require a MQA DAC, correct? I am talking about software decoding... which is a big discussion going on in the Roon forums.
By the way, Aurender does not mention anything on their website about MQA support. I don't think they would keep that a secret.
http://www.aurender.com/
But Roon users require a MQA DAC, correct? I am talking about software decoding... which is a big discussion going on in the Roon forums.
By the way, Aurender does not mention anything on their website about MQA support. I don't think they would keep that a secret.
http://www.aurender.com/
still-one
Active member
Re: MQA on Tidal
You keep focusing on MQA as a transport for hi res files and pooh poohing the idea that MQA can and in many instances does improve the SQ of the file.
The ability to easily stream MQA files is not of importance to me. The SQ is. I will treat MQA files just as I do PCM or CD's. I purchase the CD or occasional Hi-Rez files of those releases I like and I tag those of marginal interest to stream via Sooloos Tidal as needed.
You keep focusing on MQA as a transport for hi res files and pooh poohing the idea that MQA can and in many instances does improve the SQ of the file.
The ability to easily stream MQA files is not of importance to me. The SQ is. I will treat MQA files just as I do PCM or CD's. I purchase the CD or occasional Hi-Rez files of those releases I like and I tag those of marginal interest to stream via Sooloos Tidal as needed.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Re: MQA on Tidal
I do understand SQ as most important, as it is to me as well, of course with a much more limited budget. Of course that is irrelevant to the current discussion...
The point being that MQA is in fact a PCM based system. It is designed to make PCM files more compact and easier to transport. It is not a new coding system... it is PCM... yes they attempt to improve PCM files by adjusting for DAC used for recording, etc., with mixed results from all reports.
However it is not better if the original was not recorded PCM...
Anyway, it is in fact designed as a transport system for PCM files, and as such is great for Tidäl users..
I do understand SQ as most important, as it is to me as well, of course with a much more limited budget. Of course that is irrelevant to the current discussion...
The point being that MQA is in fact a PCM based system. It is designed to make PCM files more compact and easier to transport. It is not a new coding system... it is PCM... yes they attempt to improve PCM files by adjusting for DAC used for recording, etc., with mixed results from all reports.
However it is not better if the original was not recorded PCM...
Anyway, it is in fact designed as a transport system for PCM files, and as such is great for Tidäl users..
Re: MQA on Tidal
I'm not an MQA fan, but this statement is pretty far from the (much more complicated) "truth".
I'm not an MQA fan, but this statement is pretty far from the (much more complicated) "truth".
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Re: MQA on Tidal
Again, I am all for advancements in tech... but... I have read and been told from very informed sources that in essence MQA is in fact a transport system for PCM designed around the idea of higher resolution streaming without the bandwidth issues... they have actually referred to it (Meridian not me) as the next generation MP3.... probably a marketing thing... but... anyway....
"Just a PCM stream
So MQA is just a 88.2 or 96kHz PCM stream with 16 bits resolution. According to Meridian and as mentioned in the patent this is enough to satisfy audiophile requirements. In Mr. Stuarts 2004 AES paper “Coding High Quality Digital Audio” he concludes (page 19) that to capture all hearable frequencies we need 58kHz sampling rate with a 14-bit representation with appropriate noise shaping. MQA clearly exceeds this minimum requirement.
However from more recent research it turns out that although humans can not hear frequencies above 20kHz, they are sensitive to timing of sounds to about 10 microseconds. So first you notice the arrival of a sound (quick change in air pressure, a very high frequency) and later on you actual hear what sound it is. To preserve this timing info in the audio signal 96kHz is therefor not enough, we actually need 192kHz. MQA does not seem to take this into account?
Since with very high frequencies it is all about the timing (and amplitude) and not about the actual frequency, Meridian found a way around this. The solution is described in the patent named “Digital Encapsulation of Audio Signals”. In the presentation of MQA Mr. Stuart states that the information of the 192kHz signal is carefully folded into the 96kHz signal. The truth is that this automatically happens if you down sample without a lowpass (or brick wall) filter at the Nyquist frequency (half of the signal frequency). For instance if you down sample from 88.2kHz to 44.1kHz signal, 23kHz will be mapped onto 21kHz, 24kHz onto 20kHz and so on.
With the frequencies of the above example this is considered to be a big problem. However the higher frequencies (above 76kHz) of the 192kHz signal (above 68kHz for a 176.4kHz signal) have far less energy than the lower frequencies (below 20kHz and within human range). So in this case it should be no problem. And to avoid contamination of the lowest 7kHz range (to which the human hearing system is most sensitive), Meridian deploys a small 6 tap FIR filter to attenuate the upper frequencies of the 192kHz signal, since they will be mapped on the lowest frequencies after folding.
Decoding of the 96kHz MQA stream to the original 192kHz signal is simply performed by calculating in-between samples by averaging the 2 neighbouring samples. Besides that a small correction filter is applied to compensate for the filter used at the encoding stage. The idea is that this up sampling process should happen in the DAC or just before the DAC.
So there you have it: MQA is just a 192kHz signal folded into a 96kHz 16 bits PCM stream. "
Again, I am all for advancements in tech... but... I have read and been told from very informed sources that in essence MQA is in fact a transport system for PCM designed around the idea of higher resolution streaming without the bandwidth issues... they have actually referred to it (Meridian not me) as the next generation MP3.... probably a marketing thing... but... anyway....
"Just a PCM stream
So MQA is just a 88.2 or 96kHz PCM stream with 16 bits resolution. According to Meridian and as mentioned in the patent this is enough to satisfy audiophile requirements. In Mr. Stuarts 2004 AES paper “Coding High Quality Digital Audio” he concludes (page 19) that to capture all hearable frequencies we need 58kHz sampling rate with a 14-bit representation with appropriate noise shaping. MQA clearly exceeds this minimum requirement.
However from more recent research it turns out that although humans can not hear frequencies above 20kHz, they are sensitive to timing of sounds to about 10 microseconds. So first you notice the arrival of a sound (quick change in air pressure, a very high frequency) and later on you actual hear what sound it is. To preserve this timing info in the audio signal 96kHz is therefor not enough, we actually need 192kHz. MQA does not seem to take this into account?
Since with very high frequencies it is all about the timing (and amplitude) and not about the actual frequency, Meridian found a way around this. The solution is described in the patent named “Digital Encapsulation of Audio Signals”. In the presentation of MQA Mr. Stuart states that the information of the 192kHz signal is carefully folded into the 96kHz signal. The truth is that this automatically happens if you down sample without a lowpass (or brick wall) filter at the Nyquist frequency (half of the signal frequency). For instance if you down sample from 88.2kHz to 44.1kHz signal, 23kHz will be mapped onto 21kHz, 24kHz onto 20kHz and so on.
With the frequencies of the above example this is considered to be a big problem. However the higher frequencies (above 76kHz) of the 192kHz signal (above 68kHz for a 176.4kHz signal) have far less energy than the lower frequencies (below 20kHz and within human range). So in this case it should be no problem. And to avoid contamination of the lowest 7kHz range (to which the human hearing system is most sensitive), Meridian deploys a small 6 tap FIR filter to attenuate the upper frequencies of the 192kHz signal, since they will be mapped on the lowest frequencies after folding.
Decoding of the 96kHz MQA stream to the original 192kHz signal is simply performed by calculating in-between samples by averaging the 2 neighbouring samples. Besides that a small correction filter is applied to compensate for the filter used at the encoding stage. The idea is that this up sampling process should happen in the DAC or just before the DAC.
So there you have it: MQA is just a 192kHz signal folded into a 96kHz 16 bits PCM stream. "
KeithR
Active member
Re: MQA on Tidal
well, consider me confused. is the gist that people with non-MQA dacs can run MQA files through Tidal and sound better than the non-MQA version? or do you need a MQA dac for the files to sound better.
well, consider me confused. is the gist that people with non-MQA dacs can run MQA files through Tidal and sound better than the non-MQA version? or do you need a MQA dac for the files to sound better.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Re: MQA on Tidal
Every source says you need a MQA DAC to realize the benefits, and many sources state that there is actually a degradation in sound with a non-MQA DAC...
A direct quote from a Benchmark white papers: "There is no question that MQA degrades the quality of the audio for users who do not have an MQA decoder."
Every source says you need a MQA DAC to realize the benefits, and many sources state that there is actually a degradation in sound with a non-MQA DAC...
A direct quote from a Benchmark white papers: "There is no question that MQA degrades the quality of the audio for users who do not have an MQA decoder."
Re: MQA on Tidal
Depends on who you believe. The marketing message says yes. If you believe the analysis done by various guys in the Internet, the the answer is different.
Depends on who you believe. The marketing message says yes. If you believe the analysis done by various guys in the Internet, the the answer is different.
audio.bill
Active member
Re: MQA on Tidal
According to Steven Stone at AudioCircle.com:
"The reason Tidal no longer lists MQA-compatible DAC as a necessity is because it no longer is! You can get a 96/24 stream from the MQA masters via the MQA app's internal MQA decoding for ANY Dac that is 96/24 capable. Even the PS Audio DSD jr works. Anti up the $20 a month and you're ready to rock with 96/24 streams. Add an MQA compatible DAC and you can get 192/24..."
According to Steven Stone at AudioCircle.com:
"The reason Tidal no longer lists MQA-compatible DAC as a necessity is because it no longer is! You can get a 96/24 stream from the MQA masters via the MQA app's internal MQA decoding for ANY Dac that is 96/24 capable. Even the PS Audio DSD jr works. Anti up the $20 a month and you're ready to rock with 96/24 streams. Add an MQA compatible DAC and you can get 192/24..."
Re: MQA on Tidal
Steven Stone is from The Absolute Sound, although that is somewhat beside the point. More interesting is the question: where is Meridian making money from MQA, if Tidal isn't charging extra and one doesn't need an MQA DAC?
Steven Stone is from The Absolute Sound, although that is somewhat beside the point. More interesting is the question: where is Meridian making money from MQA, if Tidal isn't charging extra and one doesn't need an MQA DAC?
Jack
Active member
Re: MQA on Tidal
If Tidal's analysis after the first several months show that there is enough demand and enough usage by more than a small group of users then the "free" part will go and they will charge extra as was the initial plan. As much money as they lose every month they have to get it from somewhere. As it is now it only works if you are streaming from the Tidal app using full Windows or Mac OS. IOS devices which are the majority control device for most streaming apps won't work. Auralic came out with a statement earlier today that their Lightning DS software would pass the MQA data on. Well it doesn't and as it is an IOS based software it wouldn't. The Masters section does not show up in Lightning DS like on the Windows 10 Tidal app. So if I wanted to hook up a $30 Chromecast Audio device it would work.
If Tidal's analysis after the first several months show that there is enough demand and enough usage by more than a small group of users then the "free" part will go and they will charge extra as was the initial plan. As much money as they lose every month they have to get it from somewhere. As it is now it only works if you are streaming from the Tidal app using full Windows or Mac OS. IOS devices which are the majority control device for most streaming apps won't work. Auralic came out with a statement earlier today that their Lightning DS software would pass the MQA data on. Well it doesn't and as it is an IOS based software it wouldn't. The Masters section does not show up in Lightning DS like on the Windows 10 Tidal app. So if I wanted to hook up a $30 Chromecast Audio device it would work.
Re: MQA on Tidal
In short:
MQA SQ improvement is designed to come from time deblurring, elimination of pre-ringing and post-ringing, based on profiling the ADC in the recording equipment, as well as the DAC. Therefore, to get the full benefits, MQA DAC is required. Without a MQA DAC, not all benefits are realized.
MQA also folds higher sampling rates into 24/44.1 or 24/48 for hopefully more efficient transport, as mentioned above.
In short:
MQA SQ improvement is designed to come from time deblurring, elimination of pre-ringing and post-ringing, based on profiling the ADC in the recording equipment, as well as the DAC. Therefore, to get the full benefits, MQA DAC is required. Without a MQA DAC, not all benefits are realized.
MQA also folds higher sampling rates into 24/44.1 or 24/48 for hopefully more efficient transport, as mentioned above.
Mike Lavigne
Member
Re: MQA on Tidal
as far as I am concerned, MQA is simply part of the background noise (or garbage heap, where you would find Stuart's other turd.....MLP) until I hear from one credible person who has, with zero outside influence, observed their own files on their own gear realize definite improvement. everything I have seen so far is manipulated and massaged. I am surprised they have got as far as they have with as little true evidence.
I've participated in 2 MQA demos at shows with my mind open, but both were simply a series of choreographed cuts played without any sort of credible process for the audience to really know what was what.
show me one end user who raves about it.
OTOH if they have really done 'cold fusion' for us music lovers (actually improve an original file by the process and not just change it) then good for them and we all benefit. but color me quite skeptical.
as far as I am concerned, MQA is simply part of the background noise (or garbage heap, where you would find Stuart's other turd.....MLP) until I hear from one credible person who has, with zero outside influence, observed their own files on their own gear realize definite improvement. everything I have seen so far is manipulated and massaged. I am surprised they have got as far as they have with as little true evidence.
I've participated in 2 MQA demos at shows with my mind open, but both were simply a series of choreographed cuts played without any sort of credible process for the audience to really know what was what.
show me one end user who raves about it.
OTOH if they have really done 'cold fusion' for us music lovers (actually improve an original file by the process and not just change it) then good for them and we all benefit. but color me quite skeptical.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Re: MQA on Tidal
I can see some benefits for streaming, but I admit to being skeptical also. Several respected companies have came out against MQA.
My biggest problems are the exaggerated claims with very little to back it. And then the demonstrations on crazy expensive systems with no true head to head comparisons. And then I read from several sources, with in depth technical evidence disproving the claims... hard to know what to think...
I can see some benefits for streaming, but I admit to being skeptical also. Several respected companies have came out against MQA.
My biggest problems are the exaggerated claims with very little to back it. And then the demonstrations on crazy expensive systems with no true head to head comparisons. And then I read from several sources, with in depth technical evidence disproving the claims... hard to know what to think...
Re: MQA on Tidal
Instead of debating its merits, it's probably simpler for those who have Tidal subscription to check out the MQA Tidal streaming from desktop to a (non-MQA) DAC.
Note that the *desktop* app has to be used, the quality needs to be set to HiFi/Master for Streaming access, and it's best to turn on Exclusive mode.
https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000397069-TIDAL-MASTERS
Instead of debating its merits, it's probably simpler for those who have Tidal subscription to check out the MQA Tidal streaming from desktop to a (non-MQA) DAC.
Note that the *desktop* app has to be used, the quality needs to be set to HiFi/Master for Streaming access, and it's best to turn on Exclusive mode.
https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000397069-TIDAL-MASTERS
- Thread Author
- #38
Mike Lavigne
Member
Re: MQA on Tidal
but you are not controlling the Tidal source to know what you are comparing it to. you are getting whatever Tidal might give you. so while it might give you an answer to some question, and it is a data point of some value, it does not really help to answer the question.
you need to control all aspects of the source file, the MQA application, and the comparison method. that's the feedback I'm looking for.
otherwise you are just whistling Dixie along with the prior MQA parade. we are being told what is happening, but not getting the goods.
but you are not controlling the Tidal source to know what you are comparing it to. you are getting whatever Tidal might give you. so while it might give you an answer to some question, and it is a data point of some value, it does not really help to answer the question.
you need to control all aspects of the source file, the MQA application, and the comparison method. that's the feedback I'm looking for.
otherwise you are just whistling Dixie along with the prior MQA parade. we are being told what is happening, but not getting the goods.
Re: MQA on Tidal
I am using non MQA 24/96 Dacs and streaming the MQA files through an Aurender N10 and there is a substantial increase in SQ vs. the same albums that are non MQA.....in my system it is not subtle and I am totally surprised and appreciative of this new path that seems to have opened up....quite something in my opinion and this is without an MQA DAC at the moment.
Previously I have been VERY skeptical of MQA, but after experiencing what I have experienced with these first set of titles available on Tidal in my system I am now "a believer".
I am using non MQA 24/96 Dacs and streaming the MQA files through an Aurender N10 and there is a substantial increase in SQ vs. the same albums that are non MQA.....in my system it is not subtle and I am totally surprised and appreciative of this new path that seems to have opened up....quite something in my opinion and this is without an MQA DAC at the moment.
Previously I have been VERY skeptical of MQA, but after experiencing what I have experienced with these first set of titles available on Tidal in my system I am now "a believer".